Welcome to Ritch In Thought!

Hi, and thank you for coming!

I'm Sean Ritch, a Freelance Writer, Rapper, and Music Enthusiast

I originally created this blog as part of a Case Study activity for a communication course I took my final year of college. After a year of no activity I've chosen to renew the blog.

Ritch In Thought is exactly that, me expressing my thoughts on topics I feel compelled to write about. Music, sports, and people are among my main interests, however any topic could appear on here.

The tone in my posts may vary; some posts will be more informative, some more opinionated. All will be entertaining!

I encourage you to be interactive. If you feel like commenting on a post, COMMENT!

I encourage you to connect +. Follow me on Twitter and subscribe on YouTube, where you can hear my music.

I encourage you to show me what you do. You're reading my blog; I wanna read yours!

Finally, I want you to enjoy yourself, and my work while you're here. If you don't, that's okay...something else besides my work must be bothering you.

Thanks again for being a part of Ritch In Thought, where thought is rich.

- SR

Case Integration: Communication Is Relationships

If I were to summarize what I’ve learned about communication in relationships using the least amount of words, the summary would be this: communication is relationships. In other words, any relationship is defined by its process of communication, meaning effective communication is the single most important “thing” to practice in any relationship. My case integration paper consists of two parts, the first being “Communication In Relationships, From A Specific Perspective” in which I detail a communicative episode that occurred during the first case analysis discussion thread, how I learned from it, and how the episode demonstrates my claim that communication is relationships. In the second part, “Communication In Relationships, From A General Perspective” I take what I learned from the episode, as well as several cases we analyzed, and explain how I plan to utilize it in order to create, and maintain the healthiest relationships.

Communication In Relationships, From A Specific Perspective

            Throughout the series of case analyses within this course I have learned new, healthier ways to approach communication in relationships, from both the cases themselves, and from my, as well as my peers’ responses to them. In doing so I realized not all of my communicative approaches are effective.

            When writing in the discussion thread for module two, I passionately favored Madeline’s choice to keep her maiden name when marrying her fiancé, Martín (“What’s In A Name? Negotiating Marital Name Changes”). Within this passion however exuded a bit of arrogance, and negligence for any peer who opposed my opinions. The tonality of my posts weren’t likable as a result. In several of them I attempted to use techniques similar to debate strategies, hoping to structure the posts in what I believed to be a more credible manner, ultimately desiring the agreement of more peers.

            After reviewing many posts (both mine and my peers’) from the module, and having an insightful conversation with Dr. Littlejohn regarding them, I realized two things: during the discussion thread my ego had taken control of me, and I have more improvements to make for my ability to communicate. I then decided to make a personal goal for this course: to do my best at constructively incorporating course concepts into patterns of my everyday communication, in the effort to refine my communication perspective in relationships.

            As the course continued, I acquired knowledge of several communication concepts, and understood that I applied some ineffectively while writing arrogant posts. For example, in vying for control of the discussion thread, I initiated every post I submitted with a “one up”. Specifically, instead of acknowledging everything that forms Martín’s identity (including a heritage of traditionalism) and why he’s upset (because his fiancé doesn’t want to adopt his last name), I dismissed it all, claiming that he simply needed to “get with the times”. Upon reading remarks such as this one, I cannot blame my peers (many of whom share Martín’s viewpoint) for responding with a “one up”, which inevitably fueled my ego to respond with another “one up”, creating a pattern of competitive symmetry within a course activity that is most useful when complementary.

This pattern came to define most of the interaction I had with my peers during this module discussion thread, and ultimately the relationships I had with these people. Although I had no substantial relationships with them prior to the course, I strongly believe my aggressive communication patterns came to define what was of the relationships I had with my peers up to that point. In other words, the hostile communication I approached potential relationships with defined these relationships, which reinforces the idea that communication is relationships.

Communication In Relationships, From A General Perspective

While it was never my intention to “be arrogant” toward anyone in the course beyond module two, I’ve since learned that arrogance, or an unwillingness to understand other people and their opinions should never be my intention period. And any disagreement with this statement stems from my ego, which I can control through effective use of communication. Because of my experience during module two, I’ve posited that communication is relationships, and therefore have concluded that a bitter relationship can very well be sweet, so long as the taste of the relationship’s communication changes. Communication in relationships cannot change however unless it is monitored by the participants of relationships.

Thus from here on out, in any relationship I have, when conflict arises I will first evaluate the communication occurring between myself and my relationship partner, and ask myself questions: “Is the conflict occurring because we are unclear on each other’s goals for the relationship?” “Is the conflict defensive…are we arguing, or are our egos arguing?” “How are we miscommunicating?” Likewise in times of celebration I will ask myself “What are we communicating that’s working?” “How can we continue to do this?” Whether I am asking my relationship partner questions or myself about our communication, I believe the frequency of metacommunication is most responsible for the success of a relationship.

As an interpersonal communication major it’s become a habit to ask myself questions like these about my relationships. However I understand most people are not communication majors, and therefore may not be asking themselves similar questions in the efforts to maintenance their relationships. But because I (we) naturally have relationships with non-communication majors, and because I believe the most effective way to maintenance a relationship is by understanding that communication is relationships, I feel a responsibility to create ways for how to more openly discuss the communication of my relationships, without coming off as an “arrogant communication major”. One way of tailoring arrogance would be to communicate by focusing first on the relational expectations my partner has, instead of my own…listening before speaking. By doing this I believe my approach to communication in relationships will be more about the other person, and thus more rewarding for me.

Finally, after module two and reading several of the cases in Casing Interpersonal Communication, I’ve relinquished myself of any desire to argue with other people. From now on I will disagree with others, but I will not argue with them. I didn’t decide this until reading about the direct fighting and defensive climate of Sarah and Russell from “Shallow Talk and Separate Spaces”, the rigid symmetry between Emma and Jason from “We’ll Never Be That Kind of Couple”, and the verbal aggressiveness and hostility between Mia and Layla in “The Queen and Her Bee”. I learned from each of these cases that we have the power to either engage in or refrain from arguing. I then realized I would not argue anymore because I do not have to. If ever in a situation when someone wants to argue, for the purposes of defending their ego, I will simply inform them I refuse to contribute in any such dispute, and walk away if they continue. Understanding it is up to me to argue with other people is perhaps the single most satisfying realization I made during this course. I look forward to better utilizing hundreds of hours throughout my life.

I have learned valuable ideas and information throughout the case analysis process of this course. In the most general terms, communication is the basis for everything, for how we send and receive information and emotions. And because we are sending and receiving to people with whom we have relationships, communication naturally becomes the relationship. I encourage you to evaluate both a rewarding and costly relationship in your life, by considering the communication patterns within each. Do the patterns compare, or contrast? Most likely if the relationship is unsatisfying, it is so because the communication is unsatisfying. From this course I have learned to make my relationships most satisfying by choosing to listen to others before speaking, acknowledging and respecting their opinions, even if I don’t understand them (which I will also attempt to do), and by approaching situations with the appropriate style of communication (if I’m playin’ basketball, its competitive symmetry, but if it’s a discussion thread, its all complementary). In doing all of this, I believe I am trying my best to be considerate of the fact that communication, is indeed relationships.

Enjoy your summer, and thank you for reading. 

Essay on "Who's the Parent Now?"

The following essay is broken down into two parts, the first analyzing “Who’s the Parent Now?” through the Appraisal Theory of Emotional Support, and the second evaluating the case author’s intent through gender roles and role reversal.

Appraisal Theory of Emotional Support

In "Who's the Parent Now?" Kate is a full time mother with a full time job who has just taken on full time caring responsibilities for her elderly mother. This leads to Kate suddenly changing many of her plans in order to take care of her mom, which she is not ecstatic about. Meanwhile, Kate’s brother Sandy has not taken any initiative to offer her sister any kind of assistance. For the last two months Kate has been entirely responsible for her mom. Having no desire to continue “mothering” her mother, she appraises her situation.

The appraisal theory of emotional support is based on the idea that when something goes wrong, or something unexpected and unwanted occurs in a person's life, he or she's goals are inevitably affected, which leads to an appraisal of these goals, and ultimately an emotional response. 

For Kate, her goals are raising her children, maintaining a high level of work performance, spending time with her husband (possibly), as well as participating in other social outings she enjoys. Because Kate is now faced with the huge responsibility of taking care of her sick mother full time, she must suddenly observe her goals, and appraise how this will affect them. How can she take care of her kids if her mother needs to be taken care of? How will she be able to work if her mother needs to be fed? When will she ever be able to get hammered with her friends?! The unwanted answers to these questions leads Kate to respond emotionally with both anger and guilt, anger because her brother hasn't made any offer to help her with their mother, and guilt because of her lack of desire to help her mom all the time. 

Thus, to help deal with her emotional response, Kate seeks out a therapist, who then assists Kate in reappraising her situation by providing advice through emotional support. The therapist reminds Kate that her mother needs this care no matter what, however encourages Kate to reach out to other resources for assistance, such as hiring a full time caretaker, and splitting the costs with her brother. This decision, which Kate ultimately chooses, reappraises her situation in a way that her mother is still taken care of, while her life goals as a parent, career person, and fun person are all still met.

Gender Role Reversal

I believe this case is intended to explore the communication of gender roles in western civilization. The author of the case, Julia Wood wrote “Communication Theories In Action” (the textbook for C&J 300), a book that examines several theories related to gender, among other critical studies of communication. Through the characters Kate and Sandy, it appears as though Wood is attempting to illustrate the woman’s role of caregiver, a role assumed by both men and women to be a woman’s responsibility. Further, when I read how she wrote Sandy’s character, I realized that his carelessness, and unwillingness to assist his sister with their mother is probably not atypical among men in western cultures. This leads me to believe that Wood ultimately desires a change in the cultural gender norm of care giving. That is she wants more men to take initiative in situations such as Kate’s. In a way she is advocating a role reversal for “caregiver”.

It’s easy to imagine Kate wiping her mother’s (or father’s) ass, but hard to imagine her brother, or most brothers in the west doing so. It’s also easy to imagine the “I can’t believe you would even ask me!” look on Sandy’s face if Kate were to ask him to do such a thing. I don’t think Sandy would even consider it, because it is such an extreme role reversal for him, or any man. Why is it so extreme for men, and not women? Like Wood noted, women have assumed care giving for centuries. Therefore, for Kate wiping down her mother is simply unbearable, but for Sandy it’s unfathomable; there is no way for him to understand the idea, as he, being a man has never pictured himself a “caregiver”.

To be clear, this is by no means an excuse for Sandy. On the contrary, he may not be a “caregiver”, but he is a “man”, and “men” “take care of business when there’s business to be taken care of”. In this case, Sandy’s mom is big business. Therefore he must “man up” and help his sister take care of their mother. Whether he offers his time or money, I’m convinced Kate simply wants Sandy’s help, which both his time and/or money can offer. Further, if Sandy does split the costs with Kate for hiring a caregiver (instead of giving care himself), Kate will get what she wants/deserves (resources for mom), without having to hear her brother pout about his role reversing (offering time -> wiping mom -> woman; offering money -> making money -> man).

Finally, if Sandy does throw a fit, Kate should remind him what her therapist told her, “If love is doing only what we want to do, it’s not very admirable.” 

You're Not That "Kind" Of Couple...Yet

"We'll Never Be That Kind of Couple" is a true testament for why people who are romantically involved should not live with each other...when a couple fights over what to watch on television, I would suggest the best communication improvement they could make would be to spend less time together. Then again, I don't believe this particular fight between Emma and Jason was about the actual program they were watching together, but something more implicit, the violation of relational expectations. 

Emma and Jason are increasingly fighting since they've moved in together, and are more in fear of "becoming" the violent couple next door as a result. The couple has a regular "TV night" on which they watch Grey's Autonomy. Jason however chooses to watch a live sports game instead, telling Emma she can catch the taping of the episode. On another evening, Jason ditches date night with Emma in order to catch another sporting event. Instances such as these lead Emma and Jason to feel hard emotions toward each other, which leads to worse fighting.

Perhaps the easiest conflict resolution in this situation would be for Jason to move out and find a woman who digs sports. But this is C&J 421, where we look at things from a communication perspective, so let's do that. 

Currently, the violation of relational expectations, such as not sticking with TV and date nights as planned has created anger and hurt within Emma and Jason, which has lead to increased fighting, and ultimately guilt. During each argument, Emma and Jason attempt to one-up each other, Jason refusing to take Emma out as planned, and Emma reluctant to stick to Jason's re-schedule. Because the two are engaging in competitive symmetry, they are unable to coordinate in a way that would allow them to impress the healthiest examples of The Serpentine Model. In other words, Emma and Jason are not taking turns asserting and accepting each other, and therefore are misinterpreting each other's actions, which leads each to "mis-act". 

Because Emma and Jason have just moved in together, I believe it is time to renegotiate the expectations of their relationship. The two of them must sit down, and learn how to communicate using flexible complementary control patterns. That is Emma and Jason must take turns "one upping and downing" each other in order for them to reach an agreement. "I'd like to watch Grey's Autonomy tonight, Jason." "Okay, let's do it, baby." "Hey Emma-doll, I'd like to watch the game tonight." "Okay Jason, let's do it baby!" If the communication flows, the television programs are really one in the same.

In addition to viewing their relationship from a communication perspective, Emma and Jason should simply put their situation in perspective...if only so many people around the world were lucky enough to rent an apartment in which they can sit down on a comfortable couch and fight. Instead of taking their residential privileges for granted, it would be wise for Emma and Jason to appreciate the fact that they have a climate they can make defensive.

Perhaps realizing what they do have together would encourage Emma and Jason to work for what they don’t have in a more patient manner, which means not getting defensive during times of conflict. Again, by one-upping each other Emma and Jason both behave in a defensive climate of superiority. Further, Jason is strategic in trying to hide his one-up of abandoning a planned date-night with Emma by rescheduling for a couple evenings later. Behavior such as this will doom their relationship. Therefore Emma and Jason, when renegotiating their relational expectations, should also explicitly voice the priorities each has that might affect these expectations. That way, Emma and Jason won’t bullshit each other when attempting to “get out” of a relationship situation in hopes of “getting in” their individual priorities.

Finally, regarding the violent couple next door…while I wouldn’t suggest calling the police immediately, Emma and Jason should take some kind of action, whether it be knocking on their neighbor’s door with some apples (a simple “Hey, we’re your new next door neighbors!” could potentially remind the violent couple there are in fact people living next door, who can hear through the walls), or informing the land lord about the situation. If the situation persists, Emma and Jason might have to call abuse centers, and eventually the police.

            This case appears to have intentionally coordinated the increasing violence occurring next door with Emma and Jason’s. In other words the more violent the neighbors become, the more violent Emma and Jason become. Therefore it is important Emma and Jason rid their environment of violence, as having such a close proximity to it has had a rather contagious effect.

Emma and Jason, I remain hopeful.

Uggh...newlyweds.

“The Embarrassment of Disclosing Private Information in Public: Newly Married Couples” explores Matt and Jennifer, a couple struggling with each other’s boundaries for privacy. Matt comes from a very open family, and therefore does not limit what he tells them. Jennifer however does not come from an open family; instead her parents discourage self-disclosure. As a newly married couple, this difference creates a rather significant relational turbulence one evening while the two are having dinner with Matt’s family: while sitting around the table Matt reveals two things that Jennifer does not want to discuss with her in-laws, calling Matt’s mom “Mom”, and the decision to not have a baby, yet. After Jennifer hears every member of Matt’s family attempt to persuade her to have kids earlier than she desires, she becomes upset and leaves the dinner table. The case ends with the notion that Matt understands the change Jennifer desires from him, but doesn’t understand why she desires it.

In this case, it appears as though Jennifer attempts to advise Matt by defining the act, episode, and lifescript that will form for their relationship if he doesn’t seriously consider listening to her. The act, or problem, is Matt’s willingness to freely discuss matters regarding their marriage, matters that Jennifer wants kept private. It appears as though Matt has disclosed such information before to his family, however never has the information been so sensitive to Jennifer. Sensitive or not, if Matt continues the act of trespassing the privacy boundaries Jennifer has set for their relationship, an episode of Jennifer running out of the kitchen every time the in-laws feed her will form, ultimately turning into a lifescript of poor family relations.

Before their relationship spirals downward however, there are steps both Matt and Jennifer can take toward solving their issue:

            First, it would be wise for Matt and Jennifer to account for each of their behaviors. In other words they should explain, not defend to each other why they each approach the dinner table situation differently. After reading the case, I’m still not convinced Matt understands the way in which Jennifer was raised, a feeling I didn’t get when considering Jennifer’s understanding of Matt’s family’s communicative behavior. When they do decide to account for their actions, Matt and Jennifer should select a comfortable, serious conversation-friendly environment. Often times, the effectiveness of a discussion similar to this one is much less if it takes place immediately after someone experiences a whirlwind of unwanted emotions, as Jennifer did during dinner.

            Second, only after Matt and Jennifer have clearly accounted their communicative behaviors to each other can they begin to reconstruct their mutual face. Whether Matt becomes more reserved, or Jennifer begins to reveal more, neither will make a 180. Therefore it is imperative Matt and Jennifer acknowledge that no matter how mutual their face, it will never be perfectly symmetrical. Instead evidence of both their individual faces will show. Once they accept this, they can embrace their differences as individuals, all while embracing the similarities they’ve mutually created, which leads to my third point.

            After reconstructing their mutual face, Matt and Jennifer must live up to their construction. This can only occur if they first co-orient, or feel the same way about what they’ve created together in their relationship. This step not only requires understanding however, but action. Matt must go beyond understanding Jennifer’s account, and show her that he understands. How? Next time Jennifer comes over to his family’s for dinner, instead of initiating conversations Jennifer absolutely does not want to have, Matt could simply let Jennifer initiate conversation with his family. After all one of the first things Matt says about his mother to Jennifer in the case is “You can say anything to her; she’s easy to talk to.” This may be true Matt, but Jennifer can’t say anything to your mom if you’re saying it all for her.

Also, the case notes “Jennifer wanted to get close to Matt’s mother, but Kelly expected her to act as if they had known each other all their lives”. If this is true, it could also be beneficial for Matt to sit down with his mother for a one-on-one discussion: “Hey mom, Jennifer feels like a few onion layers of the social penetration theory have been skipped…she’s still curious about the basics!”…of course, Matt can spare his mother the communication propaganda. If Matt’s family is as open as they claim, surely his mother will be open to this discussion.

            In this case, the main issue seems to be Matt’s lack of respect for Jennifer’s privacy boundaries. He seems to need more of a change than Jennifer. If he follows my free tutorial carefully, listed in the three steps above, he will be making some changes. And it is my hope that if Matt begins to respect Jennifer’s wishes for keeping certain matters regarding their relationship private, she will naturally begin to open up more than she has…maybe not to the point of openly discussing her decision to post pone having kids with her baby hungry in-laws, but certainly beyond the first few layers of the self-disclosure onion. If Jennifer doesn’t, well then, she’s got some changes to make too.

No Strings Attached: The Case of Lindsay and Jerod

"No Strings Attached" is a case I found especially applicable to our course, as I imagine some, if not many of us have experienced a similar situation, whether it is from the perspective of Lindsay and/or Jerod. 

Lindsay and Jerod are "friends with benefits". For a couple months they've made frequent arrangements to get drunk, have sex, and pass out. While this was initially okay with Lindsay she now desires more from the relationship. Jerod however has no intention of making Lindsay more than a fling. 

In terms of relational development, Lindsay and Jerod's relationship would likely be categorized in the initiation stage. Although they have certainly "experimented" with each other, the experimentation stage requires more than pouring shots and unrolling Jimmys. Aside from knowing they like getting drunk and having sex together, Lindsay and Jerod do not really know each other. This begins to bother Lindsay, whose emotion equipped sexual investment in Jerod has lead her to want more out of her relationship with him. At the least, she's out to bring certainty to her state of curiosity.  

Having not really heard from Jerod, Lindsay shows up unannounced to his frat house where she discovers him with another woman. Saddened, Lindsay rushes (no pun intended) from the fraternity and is faced with the dilemma for how to address Jerod regarding their relationship. Aware that she and Jerod haven't really formed an actual relationship (that she and him are still only in the stage of initiation), she wonders how she could even approach Jerod, stating that as a "friend with benefits" she really doesn't possess the right to question his motives for their arrangement. Through this internal conflict and increased levels of emotion Lindsay has advanced herself to the experimentation stage of relational development. That is she would like to talk with Jerod and get to know him in the effort to bring clarity to their relationship. While Lindsay seems interested in “intensifying” her relationship with Jerod, it is also apparent that above all she simply wants Jerod to be honest and straightforward with her about who they are in relation to each other. Nonetheless, because Jerod is still in the stage of initiation, Lindsay remains uncertain on how to initiate an “experimental” conversation.

For Lindsay, I think Jerod's non-verbal communication is telling, and by "non-verbal" I mean Jerod's actual silence, his inconsistency in calling Lindsay, or his not "filling her in" on how he feels about their "stringless" situation. In general, if a man feels for a woman, he will make it known to her, for men typically initiate. And while Jerod did initiate his arrangement with Lindsay, he only did it…initially. Since, he has made no real effort to show any commitment toward Lindsay beyond his commitment to her lower half. Not to mention Jenna, the woman who sat on Jerod's lap as Lindsay entered the frat house. By not telling Lindsay anything, Jerod has told her she is nothing more to him than a "fuck buddy", at least we would assume.

Of course, it is usually not easy for someone in Lindsay's position to simply say "Oh, I can just sense that's he's not really into me like that." And who knows? Jerod could have some unorthodox Greek life strategy of developing his intimate relationships. Regardless, it remains apparent that Lindsay needs some verbal answers. While she did question whether she has the right to discuss her feelings with someone she is only sleeping with, she failed to question whether she does not have the right to discuss her feelings with someone she is only sleeping with. After all, what Lindsay is feeling has unfurled as a result of this very "friendly, beneficial" arrangement she and Jerod established. Thus Lindsay should acknowledge that it is okay for her to address the issue. However if this hesitance continues to be an issue, she could simply wait until she hears from Jerod for their next hook-up, then meet up with him, and talk instead of fuck. That way the talk wouldn’t result from Lindsay’s efforts to get together, but Jerod’s, which could ease the approach for Lindsay as she discusses her feelings with him. Further, if Lindsay does wait until she hears from Jerod, she might be waiting a while, perhaps enough time for her to move forward from the situation…when Jerod does call, Lindsay won’t even care to have a talk anymore.

Lindsay can either interpret Jerod's non-verbals and then draw her own conclusions, or to be absolutely sure she can ask Jerod to draw his picture of their relationship, and hope his sketching skills are more than respectable. Finally Lindsay can simply wait to hear from Jerod, and then talk (or not talk) with him, depending on whether she has the desire to do so at that point.

Moving Up: The Case of Lawyer Jim

In "Moving Up: The Challenges of Communicating a New Social Class Identity", we are introduced to two people, Jim and Marc. Jim is currently a new lawyer at a prestigious law firm, but hails from a working class background; he is "the only big shot his family's got" according to his uncle. Because of his background, Jim has developed working class ideals; he prefers practicality over price, only spending what he needs to, and has always considered himself among working class folk. 

"The challenges of communicating a new social class identity" arise when Jim meets with the firm's head lawyer (Marc) on a Monday for his sixty-day performance review. Marc informs Jim that his ability to perform tasks as a lawyer is exceptional, but that his image as a lawyer needs some significant improvement, as it does not reflect the firm’s prestige, but a working class background. Marc doesn’t want to see cheap suits, watches, cars, or Jim not going out to lunch with other lawyers, but the opposite. Jim leaves the meeting taken aback, but understanding and willing to make some changes toward his image.

            Throughout the rest of the week Jim is consumed with satisfying Marc’s demands for a new image, even putting his work for the firm aside to meet them. He complies by buying more expensive attire, going out to Sushi bars with his co-workers, and even questioning his old Chevy…maybe a Benz? By Friday Jim is excited about the changes he has put forth the effort in making, when Marc suddenly demands Jim to no longer assist or establish rapport with secretaries at the firm, or anyone else who Marc considers “little people” (people of the working class background). Unlike Marc’s previous requests for image change, this does not suit well with Jim.

            The case concludes with this: “How could he prove to his boss that he is cut out to be an attorney? And how could he reassure his parents that he is the same old Jimmy?”

            Until Friday I, like Jim, understood Marc’s requests for change. No matter what context, the saying “image is everything” holds true. It is unsuitable to appear at a high status law firm as a lawyer in JC Penny boxed suits, just as it would be unsuitable to show up for work at an assembly line in an expensive suit. I agree with Marc that Jim must reevaluate the way he dresses, talks in certain situations, and possibly even the car he drives, for both the benefit of the firm, and for his own benefit…when he is no longer “new” and dealing with even more prestigious clients, which lawyer will these clients desire, the one pullin’ up to work in a Porsche, or the one pullin’ up to work in a Pinto? And although Jim seemed surprised to hear Marc’s suggestions on Monday, I’m sure there had to have been some point throughout his law schooling when he realized his working class identity would be addressed at some future point.

I was very impressed with Jim’s willingness to make a few changes toward his identity as a lawyer for two reasons, the first being his lack of resistance to change. Jim seems to embrace the idea of something different as he thinks to himself “If this is what is needed to be successful, then maybe I could try dressing a little differently…a couple new suits might actually be a good thing.” Second, by making most of the changes Marc asks of him, Jim strategically puts Marc in a position where if he continues to ask Jim to reshape his image, he might appear too demanding, which could hurt Marc’s image. It is Jim’s ease in “trying something new” that will give him advantage later on, whether it be at the law firm or not.

The day when Marc does become too demanding suddenly arrives for Jim; in the same week Marc laid out his initial requests. On Friday, Marc suddenly calls Jim into his office and orders him not to help or assist the working class (that is the secretaries, custodial staff, etc.) in the building, for they are simply “little people” in the law office, not a part of the firm. This creates an immediate internal conflict with Jim, as he believes Marc is now going too far…after all, Jim entire family is “little people”.

While I didn’t mind Marc’s initial requests for Jim, I completely understand Jim’s hesitance to begin viewing other people in the office as “lower” than him…is it even possible for Jim to suddenly “begin” viewing people as something he previously did not? However because Marc is his boss and wants Jim to do this, Houston we have a conflict. So how can Jim solve it?

My suggestions for Jim are simple, at least in words. If I were him I would schedule a meeting with Marc, and first praise him for acknowledging that I needed to make a few image changes as a lawyer, that the changes turned out to be good for me, despite the fact they consumed my entire week (and I’m now behind on work). After hearing him congratulate himself, I would then begin telling him about how I came to be a lawyer, about my family, perhaps the determination my working class mother instilled in me throughout my life, and that if it wasn’t for the lessons I learned from working class folks I wouldn’t be sitting in a prestigious law firm. My objective here would be to develop within Marc a liking, a respect for my mother, and ultimately a respect for working class people. It would be my hope that because I was so open to his suggestions, Marc would be open to my suggestions, open to my refusal to ignore secretaries and custodians, to not recognize them as people.

Marc’s reaction to this of course will determine Jim’s next step at the firm. If Marc is in fact receptive, understanding, and willing to make a change of his own, then Jim might just get along great. However if Marc could care less what Jim’s mother instilled in him, Jim should probably reconsider working for a “high status law firm”, or at least this one. With Jim’s exceptional law school record, bank of knowledge, and writing ability he is sure to find lawyer work elsewhere. And even if he doesn’t, his dad has a position ready for him “down at the garage”.